Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What's the point? (Score 1) 500

by Actually, I do RTFA (#47770457) Attached to: If Java Wasn't Cool 10 Years Ago, What About Now?

I could as easily pick apart your arguments. I find it hard to imagine never using code that is shared with other projects for example. Why re-invent the wheel? Are you declaring code re-use dead? What about the system libraries? Do you hack those without notice too?

You could move the goalposts like that. I explicitly didn't respond because that is trying to derail the conversation.

But what the hell. You've stopped actually responding to the points I make.

So, I would contend that code reuse is helped, not hampered, by compiler-verified interfaces. I would contend that your "code reuse" is so stifling that it is literally inferior to copy-and-pasting... at least with copy-and-pasted code you can improve the module you copied without worrying that it breaks things.

And what happened to unit testing where you should easily enough shake out cases where people called a function they shouldn't have?

Why do you want to re-invent the wheel. Now, unit testing is good, but using unit testing to re implement (imperfectly) interfaces is, well, crazy.

I have argued that the programmer who just takes the IDE's word for it will eventually end up in deep trouble.

No, you've argued that programmers are perfect, that the comments will always be accurate, functions you call will never change, and the comments always need to be read for every getter and setter. And that's just to reject my examples.

And I categorically reject any of the above.

You seem to be arguing that duck typing is bad because shoddy practices rule.

Since the only example you have been able to give as to why duck-typing has any benefit, is as a patch to shoddy use of interfaces, this seems a remarkably dumb statement. I contend that duck-typing hurts the ability of the computer to detect errors, and your only response is that some people didn't properly use interfaces in legacy code. Not that interfaces are somehow a bad way to program. But a shoddy programmer may not have used them.

Well, fuck that. A paradigm that gives up useful features to paper-over shitty work, or allows code reuse between kinda existent modules via unspecified hack code that works 95% of the time is bad. Heck, any code that would need to be papered over like you suggest probably shouldn't be trusted. Duck typing is bad, it encourages bad practices and bad coding, and allows bad programmers to continue programming with silent errors as opposed to either fixing their shit or quitting their job and flipping burgers.

Comment: Re:The death of leniency (Score 1) 499

by Actually, I do RTFA (#47769997) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

Cops have the authority and discretion to issue verbal or written warnings instead of citations for moving violations, so video recording won't change that.

And indeed, sometimes the requirement. For instance, in a state that shall remain nameless, the state patrol on drunk driving duty is supposed to pull over people who cannot stay between the lines. They don't bother citing the people who spilled soda in their lap, or were distracted, etc. It's not what their job is. But they do give a formal warning. That way, when their patrol is over, their sergeant can see they weren't asleep, or at a strip club.

Comment: Re:What's the point? (Score 1) 500

by Actually, I do RTFA (#47769779) Attached to: If Java Wasn't Cool 10 Years Ago, What About Now?

you just called whatever the IDE autopopulated with, apparently without bothering to check what it was. Or at least that's what you said may happen.

Right, because you thought that the function was a different one because you misremembered the name. Or because you would assume a function like "getCurrentHealth()" would return the health of a character, and not, I don't know, concatenate two Strings randomly. Especially if that's what similar, or identically named, functions do throughout a library.

But, yeah, it may happen.

And oral lore is really "consulting with collegues" Which totally happens in real situations. If I ask someone, for example, how to get an arctan value outside the -pi/2 to pi/2 range, them explaining quickly how to use atan2f is more valuable than telling me a function name and "GTFO;RTFM".

Bottom line, I'm advocating for computers doing the work instead of comments (which may be unread, or out of date, or literally written after the code that referred to them). I posit many, many, reasons why having a computer check for errors instead of a human being. Your only response is that "Dude, but then I cannot hack two systems together using magic glue that happens to work, and enforces on everyone a requirement of never even optimizing their code, because any change could break my system. And could be avoided if I followed best practices."

When every advantage you suggest can be done in a superior way without using duck typing, I'm blown away. You have argued that perfect programmers don't need the fuckin' IDE, they can check their own work. Well, perfect programmers don't need the fuckin' comments either, they can read the entire code and know what happens.

I can only assume you're trolling, because while I've heard people defend duck-typing before, I've never heard such a malformed argument.

Comment: Re:Two dimensional? (Score 2) 45

by gstoddart (#47767945) Attached to: Scientists Craft Seamless 2D Semiconductor Junctions

Humor has nothing to do with the incorrect definition of the number of dimensions of an object.

Which is why I mentioned your pedantry.

Let me draw you a diagram _________________

That is a two dimensional non-solid object since is has a height, one pixel, and a width, more than one pixel.

In fact, since it's drawn with electrons, it's got depth too. Actually, since it's drawn as pixels on your screen, which by now are probably discrete LED components, it's much more than that.

It's a signal which causes a series of diodes to emit a color which your eyes perceive as a straight black line -- in reality, it's none of those things either.

Look, you can be as pedantic, reductionist, and anal retentive about this as you like .. it's not contributing anything to this.

For purpose of explaining this and discussing it, they defined a plane in terms of this sheet of atoms with this particular layout.

That's it. There's no mathematical chicanery going on, and everybody knows it's not, strictly speaking, either a plane or a 2D structure. But it's got some characteristics of a plane, and, for purposes of discussion, is being treated as a 2D structure.

Because, if they had to say this 3-atom thick sheet of interlocking atoms which demonstrates some characteristics of planarity, and allow us to connect them together while maintaining the same type of planarity it would get awfully tedious.

In reality, it's probably not much different than LEGO.

Seriously, get over it. It's almost impossible to discuss this kind of thing without it turning into a tongue twister unless you come up with some form of metaphor.

The rest of this ... it's purely bullshit and pedantry by anal retentive people who need to demonstrate they remember something from math class.

Yes, excellent, from a mathematical perspective it's not 2D. But, for purposes of discussion of these material properties, they're calling it a plane.

Comment: Re:This is good! (Score 1) 449

by Zak3056 (#47767829) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

A friend of mine from Georgia (the US state) described his high school biology lecture on evolution as "OK, today I'm legally required to tech evolution. We all believe in Jesus, right? OK, next topic."

I went to a catholic elementary school, and one of my 6th grade teachers was a nun named Sister Catherine-Joseph who taught two subjects: religion and science. Despite the obvious setup for failure, she taught both rigorously, and well. I HATED that woman with a passion, but she was, absolutely, a superior educator who would have smacked the shit out of someone with a ruler for daring to suggest that, "We all believe in Jesus, *wink wink*" was either suitable coverage or a valid refutation of evolution.

Comment: Re:Two dimensional? (Score 3, Funny) 45

by gstoddart (#47767553) Attached to: Scientists Craft Seamless 2D Semiconductor Junctions

You would think that scientists would be more accurate with their articulation of complex concepts.

Well, apparently they've defined a plane to be 3 atoms thick, and have grossly understimated the collective anal retentiveness of the people reading the article.

Dude, seriously, it's a dumbed down metaphor written for a press release.

From the parts of the paper which are available without subscription:

The junctions, grown by lateral heteroepitaxy using physical vapour transport7, are visible in an optical microscope and show enhanced photoluminescence. Atomically resolved transmission electron microscopy reveals that their structure is an undistorted honeycomb lattice in which substitution of one transition metal by another occurs across the interface.

I'm quite sure they're not idiots who really think this is a freakin' 2D plane.

TFA isn't the actual scientific paper, it's the press release intended for the public.

Now, unclench a little, you're gonna hurt yourself. :-P

Comment: Re:Two dimensional? (Score 1) 45

by gstoddart (#47767469) Attached to: Scientists Craft Seamless 2D Semiconductor Junctions

While your pedantry skills are excellent, and your mathematical skills are pretty good ... I think you need to have your humor unit recalibrated, you seem to be a little out of phase.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that it isn't really a line on a plane in a strict mathematical sense ... heck, I even referenced the thickness of the ink and the fact that the paper has a surface.

Let me draw you a diagram _________________ ;-)

Now, what is the depth (stated in microns / femptofortnight) of the above line?

Comment: Re:Flip the switch (Score 1) 222

by gstoddart (#47767333) Attached to: Fermilab Begins Testing Holographic Universe Theory

After about 15 minutes of this I couldn't take it anymore and I looked at the girl and said "Go ahead and punch this guy in the nose, and then ask him whether he still wonders whether you're a figment of your imagination."

LOL ... how do you know it actually happened, and you didn't just imagine it?

Which is precisely the problem with these kinds of postulates, they're completely unknowable, and pretty much stand on their own absurdity.

Because, I could have just imagined typing this, for instance. In which case I'm imagining me imagining you imagining what you did on the bus with the guy I'm imagining you imagining, when I should be trying to imagine the college girl.

And then it just becomes stupid, or, at least, I imagine it does. :-P

Metaphysics has to stop somewhere, otherwise it becomes drivel, which as far as I recall, most metaphysics is.

Comment: Re:Is that so? (Score 1) 222

by gstoddart (#47767221) Attached to: Fermilab Begins Testing Holographic Universe Theory

IF this is a simulated world, there is no reason to assume the rules in the simulation are the same as the ones of the world in which the simulation is running.

You know (and I mean no disrespect here), some of these topics become completely indistinguishable from college nights with way too many bong hits.

Sometimes these things become quite meta.

But what if the simulation is running inside of a simulation? You'd be all like "woah" and shit. And if that was inside of a simulation ... I think it would become Horton Hears a Who.

Yo, Dawg, I hear you like simulations ...

Comment: Re:What's the point? (Score 1) 500

by Actually, I do RTFA (#47766553) Attached to: If Java Wasn't Cool 10 Years Ago, What About Now?

I presume you use the old cut'n'past code 'sharing' method with a significant appearance of the cargo cult antipattern?

Clearly the only reason you would say something like that is a particularly stupid ad homenim. I'm talking about using interfaces and code review. I'm talking about best design practices. Clearly, since I'm advocating for using interfaces, I'm not copy-and-pasting code. But advocating for what you are advocating for is actually really compatible with cut-and-pasted-code.

But that level of intentional misunderstanding may bleed into my responses below.

If any of that happens, you absolutely positively deserve everything you get. DO NOT call a function if you don't know what it is!

At this point, I wonder how your "everything in comments" system architecture works, since you seem to have issues reading. I mean, nothing I wrote says "call functions randomly".

I talked about an obvious human error (incorrect memory of a name); I talked about being given information from a collegue; I talked about coordination issues where function signatures changed; and I talked about how hard it made code reviews.

The fact that you don't seem to recognize these possible issue makes me question your experience. Because these are all things that happen.

Surely you don't recommend unilaterally changing code used in other projects!

I'm not going to make an argument here, because this is obviously going to lead to a conversation derailing where you don't address my valid points above.

Comment: Re: Not the PSUs? The actual cables? (Score 1) 125

by gstoddart (#47766055) Attached to: HP Recalls 6 Million Power Cables Over Fire Hazard

Yes. It always amazes me, but it seems to actually be the norm.

Have you ever spoken with someone outside the US? Or just in the echo chamber of "we're Murica, we're #1"?

So when someone from the UK gets on me for free speech or criminal law, I laugh a lot but I don't count it as credible.

That's OK, I'm not from the UK, and I don't you overly credible either.

Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.